An `A' on eminent domain

April 14, 2006

The Illinois House is to vote next week to strengthen property rights in this state. The bill would make it more difficult for government to seize private property, but it would still permit government to take land for critical redevelopment projects. If this bill is passed into law, it may serve as a model for the rest of the nation about how to set parameters on eminent domain.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that it was OK for a Connecticut town to condemn some private land through its eminent domain powers and turn the land over to private developers. That prompted a rush by states to restrict such takings for private purposes. Some states have at least temporarily blocked any government exercise of such powers.

Illinois wisely resisted that knee-jerk reaction. But the property owners of this state deserved reassurance and clarity about when and how governments could seize land and what kinds of compensation owners are entitled to. Municipalities also need a law that allows critical economic renewal efforts to continue.

The Senate earlier this year overwhelmingly approved a solid bill, and the House--lo and behold--has improved on it.

The bill in the House would raise the legal bar for condemning private land and clearly set out different standards of proof for different categories of condemnation. It would require governments to pay relocation costs and set stricter valuation requirements. The law would also acknowledge that many municipalities are involved in ongoing redevelopment projects that are in various stages of completion. That eases fears that those projects could be forced to a halt. It would exempt the state's nearly 1,000 tax increment financing districts from the tighter requirements.

It would exempt land that would be included in the modernization of O'Hare International Airport, so that its tighter requirements could not be seized on by O'Hare opponents to block expansion. (It's not clear O'Hare needed an exemption--it's a public project. But better to be safe.)

Lobbyists for Illinois cities and towns still oppose this bill. They contend there are sufficient property-rights protections already in place in this state. But when it became clear that a tougher law was inevitable, they pitched in to make sure the result would be something they could live with--and it is.

Lawmakers wisely took a holistic approach to the issue. They reviewed rules governing takings for both public and private purposes. They consolidated bits and pieces of more than 100 state statutes into a comprehensive act.

The result is bipartisan legislation that does credit to everyone involved, particularly House Speaker Michael Madigan and the bill's sponsors, Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion) and Sens. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest) and Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst). They get an A, and Illinois property owners will reap the benefits.